Note 15 - Contingency	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 15 – Contingencies Acquisition of Winder On April 1, 2008, Deer International acquired 100% of the equity interest in Winder from 50HZ Electric Limited (“50HZ”). At the time of such acquisition, Deer International was an offshore enterprise controlled by some of the Company’s shareholders who are PRC residents. Certain of these shareholders also owned or controlled 50HZ at the time of such acquisition, which made Winder an affiliated PRC company of such shareholders. In October 2008, such shareholders transferred their ownership interests in 50HZ to an unrelated third party, after which 50HZ was no longer a related party of the Company. The transaction was approved by the Economic Development Bureau of Yangjiang High-Tech Industry Development Zone (the “Yangjiang High-Tech Zone”). The acquisition of 100% of Winder’s equity interests by Deer International on April 1, 2008, was free of any consideration and conditions. Under applicable PRC tax rules, any transaction between related parties shall be priced on an arm’s length basis. The tax authority has the right to investigate any related party transaction and to make adjustment if it finds the price not on an arm’s length basis. The PRC tax authority would make adjustment by applying a deemed arm’s length price to the transaction. Given that 50HZ and Deer International had certain related parties at the time of the Winder acquisition, there is a possibility the consideration-free transfer may be challenged and investigated by the PRC tax authority. If the deemed arm’s length price determined by the PRC tax authority during such investigation is higher than the original cost that 50HZ paid to get 100% equity interest of Winder, such excess amount would be subject to additional PRC income tax. Although the Company believes 50HZ would be responsible for the possible PRC income tax, the Company understands it is common practice for PRC tax authority to enforce the tax collection on the entity at issue, which in this case would be Winder, and the Company may be required to pay the possible PRC income tax on behalf of 50HZ. According to the M&A Regulations, the acquisition of Winder might require the approval of Ministry of Commence People’s Republic of China (“MOFCOM”). As the interpretation and implementation of the M&A Regulations are unclear, if the approval of MOFCOM is required, the approval that 50HZ obtained from the Yangjiang High-Tech Zone may be deemed incomplete and the transferee, namely Deer International, may need to obtain further approval from MOFCOM. Pending Litigation On March 28, 2011, the Company filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Deer Consumer Products, Inc. v. Alfred Little, et al., Index No. 650823/2011, against a certain blogger, “Alfred Little,” the website SeekingAlpha.com and others. The Company claims in this action allege the publishing of false and defamatory statements by the defendants as part of scheme to manipulate and depress the market for our common stock. The Company is claiming compensatory and punitive damages totaling at least $11 million, not including claims for attorneys’ fees, and other equitable remedies, including disgorgement of any illicit trading profits received by the defendants in connection with the alleged market manipulation scheme. On August 29, 2011, the Company obtained a Court order allowing us to effect service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Alfred Little via email and related notice. We effected service on Alfred Little pursuant to that order and on September 29, 2011, Alfred Little filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for permission to appear anonymously as a party in the litigation. In addition, on August 31, 2011, the Court granted defendant SeekingAlpha.com’s motion to dismiss our claim against it on the ground that a Federal statute, the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, precluded the claim against SeekingAlpha.com. On September 29, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal of this decision. If the Company decides to go through with the appeal, it must file a brief “perfecting” the appeal no later than June 29, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the Court denied in part Alfred Little’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and permitted the Company to conduct discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction after a confidentiality agreement was reached between the parties. The court also requested that Alfred Little submit to the Court evidence corroborating his allegations of potential risks of physical harm for in camera review. On February 17, 2012, the parties reached a confidentiality agreement. On February 23, 2012, after an in camera review of the evidence presented by Alfred Little, the Court permitted Alfred Little to proceed anonymously until the Court decides the jurisdictional issue and re-directed that the parties proceed with jurisdictional discovery pursuant to the previously ordered confidentiality agreement. The Company has commenced discovery on the jurisdictional issue. On April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The court has not yet certified the class action status. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the Section 20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the published statements at issue in the Alfred Little suit described above, consist primarily of allegations that the defendants made materially false or misleading public statements concerning the Company’s financial condition in 2010 and 2009. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of the Company’s common stock during the class period. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 6, 2011, with essentially the same allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which motion is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the Court. The Company strongly denies the allegations in the complaint. The Company believes this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and will contest it vigorously. The Company plans to pursue all legal remedies available to it if the complaint is not withdrawn in its entirety.

On April 1, 2008, Deer International acquired 100% of the equity interest in Winder from 50HZ Electric Limited (“50HZ”). At the time of such acquisition, Deer International was an offshore enterprise controlled by some of the Company’s shareholders who are PRC residents. Certain of these shareholders also owned or controlled 50HZ at the time of such acquisition, which made Winder an affiliated PRC company of such shareholders. In October 2008, such shareholders transferred their ownership interests in 50HZ to an unrelated third party, after which 50HZ was no longer a related party of the Company. The transaction was approved by the Economic Development Bureau of Yangjiang High-Tech Industry Development Zone (the “Yangjiang High-Tech Zone”).

The acquisition of 100% of Winder’s equity interests by Deer International on April 1, 2008, was free of any consideration and conditions. Under applicable PRC tax rules, any transaction between related parties shall be priced on an arm’s length basis. The tax authority has the right to investigate any related party transaction and to make adjustment if it finds the price not on an arm’s length basis. The PRC tax authority would make adjustment by applying a deemed arm’s length price to the transaction. Given that 50HZ and Deer International had certain related parties at the time of the Winder acquisition, there is a possibility the consideration-free transfer may be challenged and investigated by the PRC tax authority. If the deemed arm’s length price determined by the PRC tax authority during such investigation is higher than the original cost that 50HZ paid to get 100% equity interest of Winder, such excess amount would be subject to additional PRC income tax. Although the Company believes 50HZ would be responsible for the possible PRC income tax, the Company understands it is common practice for PRC tax authority to enforce the tax collection on the entity at issue, which in this case would be Winder, and the Company may be required to pay the possible PRC income tax on behalf of 50HZ. According to the M&A Regulations, the acquisition of Winder might require the approval of Ministry of Commence People’s Republic of China (“MOFCOM”). As the interpretation and implementation of the M&A Regulations are unclear, if the approval of MOFCOM is required, the approval that 50HZ obtained from the Yangjiang High-Tech Zone may be deemed incomplete and the transferee, namely Deer International, may need to obtain further approval from MOFCOM.

On March 28, 2011, the Company filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Deer Consumer Products, Inc. v. Alfred Little, et al., Index No. 650823/2011, against a certain blogger, “Alfred Little,” the website SeekingAlpha.com and others. The Company claims in this action allege the publishing of false and defamatory statements by the defendants as part of scheme to manipulate and depress the market for our common stock. The Company is claiming compensatory and punitive damages totaling at least $11 million, not including claims for attorneys’ fees, and other equitable remedies, including disgorgement of any illicit trading profits received by the defendants in connection with the alleged market manipulation scheme. On August 29, 2011, the Company obtained a Court order allowing us to effect service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Alfred Little via email and related notice. We effected service on Alfred Little pursuant to that order and on September 29, 2011, Alfred Little filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for permission to appear anonymously as a party in the litigation. In addition, on August 31, 2011, the Court granted defendant SeekingAlpha.com’s motion to dismiss our claim against it on the ground that a Federal statute, the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, precluded the claim against SeekingAlpha.com. On September 29, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal of this decision. If the Company decides to go through with the appeal, it must file a brief “perfecting” the appeal no later than June 29, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the Court denied in part Alfred Little’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and permitted the Company to conduct discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction after a confidentiality agreement was reached between the parties. The court also requested that Alfred Little submit to the Court evidence corroborating his allegations of potential risks of physical harm for in camera review. On February 17, 2012, the parties reached a confidentiality agreement. On February 23, 2012, after an in camera review of the evidence presented by Alfred Little, the Court permitted Alfred Little to proceed anonymously until the Court decides the jurisdictional issue and re-directed that the parties proceed with jurisdictional discovery pursuant to the previously ordered confidentiality agreement. The Company has commenced discovery on the jurisdictional issue.

On April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The court has not yet certified the class action status. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the Section 20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the published statements at issue in the Alfred Little suit described above, consist primarily of allegations that the defendants made materially false or misleading public statements concerning the Company’s financial condition in 2010 and 2009. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of the Company’s common stock during the class period. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 6, 2011, with essentially the same allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which motion is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the Court. The Company strongly denies the allegations in the complaint. The Company believes this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and will contest it vigorously. The Company plans to pursue all legal remedies available to it if the complaint is not withdrawn in its entirety.